C4. Funding Mechanisms

Ideally any funding model should have the following features:

- be open and objective;

- be as simple as possible;

- provide at least three years of certainty for institutions;

- enable universities to be responsive to market needs;

- contain relevant indexation arrangements;

- have contestable elements for both teaching and research; and

- be based as far as possible on performance.

In any practical model there may, however, need to be trade-offs amongst these features.

Public Funding

Commonwealth funded operating grant for teaching, research and research training in universities:

It is in the interests of national development, access and equity, that the bulk of funding for the teaching, research and research training undertaken by public universities should continue to be provided by the Commonwealth through the operating grant. Moreover, in order to provide universities with greater flexibility, the Government should seek to assure that as many items as possible should be rolled into the base operating grant mechanism. About 80% of the operating grant is currently tied up in salaries. As the Government no longer provides universities with supplementation for salary increases, universities need to find the additional funding from existing resources. This further inhibits universities' ability to invest in non-salary developments.

The allocation of operating grant funding adhering to the rolling triennial principle is essential to provide certainty for universities and underpin strategic university planning processes and management. There is very little discretionary funding for universities to undertake initiatives in areas such as quality assurance and improvement. Some discretionary grant funding would, however, enable the Government to target areas for special funding to ensure equity considerations are given proper attention. Universities would continue to be expected to be accountable to the public for funding provided by the Government. Streamlined planning and accountability information would continue to form part of the Educational Profiles discussions which take place between the Commonwealth and universities.

- Performance-based funding for research

The research component (Research Quantum) of the operating grant should continue to be allocated on the basis of performance, using a streamlined Composite Index comprising a combination of input and output indicators.

- Performance-based funding for teaching

It has been highlighted under B2 that, at the institutional level, universities are already seeking to reward and encourage good teaching practice amongst their academic staff. It is also argued in that section that while good progress is being made, it is felt that additional incentive funding provided through an established national mechanism such as the Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development would help the sector encourage and foster innovation in teaching and learning.

At the system level, the recent Higher Education Council (HEC) report on performance-based funding provides some warnings about the introduction of system wide performance-based funding for teaching in Australia. Other countries in the OECD are moving cautiously in this regard, with Sweden, Denmark, and Chile offering various forms of limited performance-based funding. Much work needs to be undertaken in the development of simple, valid, reliable indicators prior to any attempt to introduce this method of funding to even a small proportion of the operating grant. The AVCC is co-sponsoring a seminar with the HEC later this year on this issue. In the absence of the availability of suitable indicators which could be used system wide, the AVCC argues that much can be learnt from the experience gained at the individual university level. This collective experience and wisdom could prove extremely valuable in the development of system wide indicators for use in any funding model which includes performance-based teaching in later years.

- Funding through student demand

A degree of responsiveness to demand on the teaching element of the operating grant has already been introduced into the funding of higher education through the changes announced in the Federal Budget in 1996.

From 1998, the mix of undergraduate students will be within quota HECS-liable Australian students, within quota HECS-exempt Australian students (including equity and merit based HECS-exemption scholarships), over quota HECS-liable Australian students, out of quota fee-paying Australian students and fee-paying international students.

Moving to increase the degree of responsiveness to demand could be achieved by the introduction of education awards or scholarships whereby institutions are funded via the students rather than directly by the Government. Some Vice-Chancellors believe that the introduction of a small number of such awards/scholarships could encourage explicit diversification among institutions and a differentiation of their goals. Those who support the testing of such a model believe that some awards could be allocated purely on the basis of merit (to enable highly qualified students a greater range of choice) and some on the basis of regional needs (to provide a particular incentive for students to study in the regional universities). Others consider such a scheme would evoke instability in the system which, given the major public investment in university infrastructure, would be counter to national objectives. It is argued that it would be better to pursue other options to improve university responsiveness to demand.

Private funding

While the bulk of the core funding for public universities should be provided by the Government, there is recognition that increasing funding amounts should be provided from private sources to maintain and enhance the quality of university activities of teaching, research, research training and community development. The following paragraphs outline some of the current and possible mechanisms for increasing private funding.

- User pays - Australian Students

From 1989, Australian students have contributed to their education through HECS by choosing between a discounted up-front payment or an additional charge to their annual tax bill once their earnings reach a minimum threshold. The AVCC, as well as the community at large, has supported HECS as a means through which beneficiaries of higher education make a contribution towards the cost of their higher education.

Universities have also been able to offer fee-paying postgraduate places in selected courses since 1988/89.

From 1998, universities may offer places to Australian undergraduate students for a fee payable directly to the institution, provided that the institution has filled its target number of places for Commonwealth funded undergraduate student load. The number of fee-paying Australian undergraduate students will be limited to 25% of the total enrolment of Australian undergraduates in any course.

The advantage of this change is that it provides the potential for universities to generate additional revenue without reducing opportunities for financially disadvantaged students. The ability to generate additional revenue is particularly critical in view of the fact that the reduction to operating grants announced in the 1996 Federal Budget, has occurred at a time when there are compelling imperatives to award salary increases and to radically overhaul infrastructure for both teaching and research, particularly in information technology and telecommunications. The disadvantages of the change to allow fee-paying arrangements for undergraduate students include the inherent complexity of the arrangements, concerns about access and equity, and the differential effects it will have on different universities. The AVCC argues that the changes introduced in the 1996 Federal Budget must be given time to settle and their impact reviewed, prior to any further changes to fee-paying arrangements being made.

The AVCC does not support the extension of HECS to students attending private universities in the same way that it does not support the provision of HECS to fee-paying undergraduate students in public universities. Students who are unable to obtain a Government-funded place at a public university and choose to accept a fee-paying place at either a public or private university do so in full knowledge of the financial commitment which they and their families are taking on.

- User pays - Overseas Students

In recent years, a growing source of income for universities has been the export of education services. Since Australian universities started admitting full-fee paying international students in the late 1980s, the number of overseas students attending Australian universities has increased steadily, to reach 52,899 in 1996.

Australia benefits in many ways from the participation of international students in the education system. Benefits occur at the personal, institutional and national levels. Benefits include contribution to the teaching and research experience of Australian students, future trade opportunities and tourism.

The tuition fee income derived by universities from international activities is estimated to have exceeded $600m in 1996. Total income received in 1996 (tuition, accommodation, food expenses) from overseas students across all education sectors was $2.6b. Internationalisation also provides a wide range of non-pecuniary benefits to universities and pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits to the community more generally. These benefits are under threat if Australian investment in higher education is reduced and quality of teaching and research falls. Overseas, and possibly Australian, students will vote with their feet and choose to study in other countries.

- User pays - Other sources

As highlighted under C3, universities obtain revenue, to varying degrees, from a range of external sources.

Analogous to the current tax incentive to invest in research, the Government is asked to consider the offering tax deductions for industry investment in university teaching and training. Such investment could include scholarships, cadetships, sponsoring programs or chairs, and providing equipment for teaching. Many of the world's larger multi-national companies (such as McDonald's, Microsoft and Motorola) have established their own "in house" teaching and training programs to ensure their employees are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to add-value to the industry. While multi-national companies have the resources to buy in their expertise and to train their employees "in house", the majority of Australian small to medium size companies do not. Industry demand for specialised "just in time" courses is likely to increase and tax deductibility would be of mutual benefit to universities and industry.

Recommendation 18:

The AVCC recommends:

(i) the continuance of core funding for universities via the Commonwealth operating grant, which should be as inclusive as possible to give universities maximum flexibility to manage their resources;

(ii) adherence to the rolling triennial principle in the provision of the operating grant to provide certainty for universities and underpin strategic university planning processes and management;

(iii) the continuance of performance-based funding for the research component of the operating grant (Research Quantum); and

(iv) that the Commonwealth offer a tax deduction for industry investment in university teaching and training analogous to the current tax incentive to invest in research.

APPENDIX

THE CONTEXT

1. Where the sector has come from and where it is now

The past decade has seen change of unparalleled magnitude in Australian higher education. Where once a university education was the prerogative of a privileged few, over 630,000 students attended Australian universities in 1996, almost double the number attending 10 years ago and about 18 times the number of forty years ago. The participation rate has gone from 40 per 1000 head of the 17-64 age group in 1988 to 54.2 in 1996. Secondary school retention rates to year 12 have increased from 57.6% in 1988 to 71.3% in 1995.

There has been a 45% increase in total FTE staff in universities over the decade from 56,700 FTE in 1985 to 82,000 in 1995. In 1995 there were 78,544 university staff (excluding casuals), about 46% of whom were involved in teaching and or research functions. Nearly 60% of academic staff were on tenure with 80% of senior lecturer and above on tenure.


Number of students enrolled in university courses

34,406 in 1956

91,272 in 1966

291,749 in 1976

389,968 in 1986

634,094 in 1996

DEETYA Selected Higher Education Student Statistics, 1996


Total Participation Rates per 1000 head of 17-64 population cohort

33 in 1975

37 in 1985

40 in 1988

50 in 1992

54.6 in 1996

Higher Education Participation Rates, 1994


Retention rates of secondary students to year 12

45% in 1984

57.6% in 1988

64% in 1990

72.2% in 1995

71.3% in 1996

Schools Australia ABS Catalogue No 4221.0, many years


The binary system comprising 46 colleges of advanced education and 19 universities was abolished in 1989 and replaced by the Unified National System of Higher Education (UNS) resulting in 36 public universities in the UNS, two private universities and four Commonwealth funded colleges.

Additional sources of funding were needed for the substantial growth envisaged for the higher education system. In 1989, the Government introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) whereby students could partially pay for their education by choosing between a discounted up-front payment or an additional charge to their annual tax bill once their earnings reached a particular threshold. Fees for overseas students had already been introduced in the early 1980s. Application of the user-pays principle was extended with the introduction in 1988/89 of fees for postgraduate non-research courses. The ability for universities to charge fees for Australian undergraduates up to 25% of student load, will be introduced from 1998.

There has been a shift in reliance on Government funding by universities which has seen the generation of increasing amounts of their revenue from external sources. The Government provided about 90% of university funding in 1983 and about 57.2% of university funding in 1995 although in some universities this is now as low as 45%. The amount of Commonwealth funding per equivalent full-time student unit has dropped by 8.2% since 1983.


Summary of 1995 university operating revenue for 40 higher education institutions (before abnormal items) by source:
Commonwealth Government Grants57.2%
HECS12.0%
Fees and Charges11.7%
Investment Income4.0%
State Government1.4%
Donations and Bequests1.1%
Other Sources12.6%
Total 100%($7,535,721m)

DEETYA Selected Higher Education Finance Statistics


Priority has also been given to the concept of quality and diversity. System-wide assessments of the quality of teaching, research and community service were introduced in 1993 following concerns that the move towards mass education had diminished the quality of offerings in universities. System-wide assessments were accompanied by additional funding to maintain and enhance quality outcomes in universities. In 1997, the Minister announced that future quality processes would involve universities developing their own quality improvement plans as part of their overall strategic planning processes.

Universities are at the forefront with regards to embracing new technology to enhance their teaching, learning and research activities. The Australian Academic Research Network (AARNet) was originally established by the AVCC to link all the nations universities and it remains the country's biggest Internet network. The flow of electronic data around the higher education and scientific sectors is tripling each year.

New information technology and telecommunications has allowed universities to provide for a wide range of modes of learning for students. Only 58% of students were studying full-time in 1996 with 28% studying part-time and 13.3% studying externally. Distance education has provided an alternative to full-time, on-campus study for about 80 years. The early 1990s saw a rationalisation of distance education providers and the establishment of a smaller number of Distance Education Centres. Distance education uses high quality printed materials and kits of equipment for experiments and practical learning.

Open Learning Australia (OLA) was established in 1993 to enable more students to study in the work place or from home, to provide education more cheaply and to increase access. Students are sent printed materials and are not required to attend on campus. Some units and modules are supported by television and radio which is delivered via the ABC TV or Radio National. Thirty-eight universities and TAFE colleges currently offer student courses through OLA.

There has been strong growth in the internationalisation of higher education particularly through the delivery of education to overseas students either within Australia or off-shore. In 1983, there were 10,000 privately funded overseas students studying in Australian universities and colleges of advanced education, and, by 1995, there were 57,052 studying in universities. The tuition fee income derived by universities from international activities is estimated to have exceeded $600m in 1996.

Competition has increased amongst Australian universities for not only national and international students but also other forms of revenue including funds for research. From 1995, the portion of the operating grant which is devoted to research (Research Quantum) was allocated on the basis of a comprehensive range of input and output indicators. The increasing diversity of research opportunities and strengths across the higher education system has enabled the sector to better serve regional, national and international needs.

Australian research in the last decade has seen other significant developments. There have been changes not only in the quantity and quality of research being undertaken, but also a shift in the balance of research between traditional disciplines and newer often interdisciplinary fields of research. Links with the government and private sector have strengthened through increased institutional capacity for consulting, contract research and other service activities. The sector has responded positively to Government calls for increasing levels of relevance, priority setting, competitiveness of funding for research, selectivity and concentration, and accountability.

Collaboration has also increased as universities have sought to rationalise their less popular course offerings and weak areas of teaching and research activity and build on their strengths. Productive relationships have formed between universities, particularly within States, with a sharing of courses, equipment and facilities.

Competition between the education and training sectors increased during the 1990s with each marketing its particular strengths and qualities in order to attract an increasingly discerning student market. More collaboration between universities and TAFE has been evident, however, with several universities embracing TAFE components within their structures to improve the choice and quality of educational opportunities for students.

There have been changes in the industrial relations environment. The Work Place Relations Act 1996 came into force in early 1997. With the new budgetary, policy and legislative environment universities are to handle their own wage fixing through enterprise bargaining but without as much capacity as private sector organisations to increase output of prices in response.

In 1996, the Government also signalled less certainty about the provision of Commonwealth funding for future growth, through the introduction of the new category of fee paying Australian undergraduate students.

In terms of outcomes, the number and share of the labour force occupied by university graduates is increasing. University graduates with Bachelor degrees represented 9.3% of the Australian labour force in 1987 and by 1996 this figure had increased to 17%. Employment outcomes represent an important measure of the public investment in higher education. The GCCA advises that university graduates continue to find employment quickly, with 80.6% of bachelor degree graduates (available for full-time employment) finding full-time employment within four months of completing their studies in December 1995. This outcome improves over time, with ABS statistics showing that the unemployment rate for all graduates in the community is well below that for non-graduates. The May 1995 ABS figures indicated that only 3.9% of bachelor degree graduates were unemployed compared with 8.5% for the combined population aged 15-64. Employment rates for those obtaining higher qualifications, are for most disciplines, substantially higher even than for those with first degrees.

Early 1997 finds universities working their way through the substantial changes to higher education announced in the 1996 Federal Budget and determining the best way to maximise opportunities and minimise costs.

2. How do we compare internationally?

The best comparable international data is on inputs and throughputs, that is on how much is spent on each level of education and who passes through it. The lack of data on key international indicators for educational outcomes makes international comparisons difficult.

Notwithstanding this caveat, there are some general trends worth noting. Looked at more broadly, there is a general trend in OECD countries to develop education systems to meet new social and economic challenges. Systems are being adapted to bring advanced learning to the whole population rather than an elite. The general trend has been for expansion to make post compulsory education, in particular, accessible to as many people as possible. The other significant trend is to make learning a life-long activity rather than concentrated around the years of initial education.

Percentage of GDP expended on education and in particular higher education

The OECD report Education at a Glance, 1996 comments that the level of resources provided to education (primary, secondary and tertiary) has stagnated over the past 20 years. Across OECD countries an average of 5.8% of GDP was spent on education from public sources both in 1975 and 1993. Australia moved from 6.2% of GDP expended on education in 1975 to 5.6% of GDP in 1993. OECD countries which demonstrate higher levels of public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP in 1993 included Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, France, Sweden, Czech Republic, Norway, and Switzerland.

While at the tertiary level, OECD countries as a whole devote 1.6% of GDP on tertiary education, Canada and the United States spend significantly larger fractions of their GDP on tertiary education (2.4% or more). At the other end of the scale, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Portugal, and the UK devote less than 1 per cent of their GDP funding of tertiary institutions (OECD Education at a Glance).

Commonwealth outlays on higher education in Australia as a percentage of GDP were 1.15% in 1983-84 and 1.11% in 1994-95 (Government Outlays on Final Consumption Expenditure for Higher Education as of Percentage of GDP were 1.06% in 1983-84 and decreased to 0.92% by 1994-95).

Participation

In terms of participation, 16% of 18-21 year olds, 12% of 22-25 year olds and 5% of 26-29 year olds participate on average across OECD countries in university level programs. The figures for Australia are 20.5 %, 8.4% and 4.7% respectively. Thus we have an above average number of students in the 18-21 year bracket participating in higher education but below average in the other two categories. Data are not available for over 29 year old students.


Percentage of people participating in university level education by age group
18-21 years
22-25
26-29
Australia
20.5%
8.4%
4.7%
Canada
26.2%
14.6%
5.4%
New Zealand
23.8%
10.1%
4.8%
Sweden
12.3%
15.3%
7.2%
United States
21.3%
14.4%
6.5%
United Kingdom
18.7%
5.8%
2.8%
Netherlands
22.1%
18.4%
6.2%

OECD Education Indicators at a Glance 1996


Research

Australia compares favourably with similar OECD countries in terms of the gross expenditure on R&D which is performed by the higher education sector but less favourably in terms of expenditure on R&D which is performed by the business sector.


Percentage of Gross Expenditure on R&D performed by the Higher Education Sector
1990
1994
Australia
25.5
25.0
Canada
25.1
22.9
New Zealand
18.6
28.2 (1993)
Sweden
27.4
24.5 (1993)
United States
15.4
15.2
United Kingdom
15.3
17.5
Netherlands
28.0
28.8

OECD EA5 (STIU data bases) Nov, 1996


Percentage of Gross Expenditure on R&D performed by the Business Sector
1990
1994
Australia
40.2
46.2
Canada
53.8
60 (1995)
New Zealand
31.8
30.2 (1993)
Sweden
68.5 (1991)
70.5 (1993)
United States
71
71.8 (1995)
United Kingdom
68
65.2
Netherlands
52.9
51.5

OECD, EA5 (STIU data bases), Nov 1996


Research Outputs

From 1981 to 1994, the world's output of scientific papers increased by 3.7% per year. This rate corresponds to a doubling in the total publication output every nineteen years. The greatest growth rates (>10% per year) were exhibited by countries in Australia's region. The "scientifically emerging" countries included Hong Kong, China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Such increases in outputs from newer players have meant many scientifically developed Western countries have seen their share of the world's papers decrease from 1981 to 1994. For example, the US's share of world papers decreased by 1.0% per year, the UK's share decreased by 0.9% and Germany's by 0.4% in the period 1981-1994 (The scientific wealth of nations, Science Vol 275).

Table 1 shows the world top 15 countries ranked by the contribution of their scientists to the world's total number of publications in science, medicine and engineering from 1981 to 1994. These countries accounted for 81.3% of the world's papers. The relative citation impact (RCI) gives some measure of the quality of the average paper.

The top five countries by publication shares, which are the 5 largest economies invest proportionately more in R&D that do most other countries. The smaller countries with high ranking RCI (Switzerland and Sweden) are relatively high investors in R&D. Australia is ranked number eight.


Table 1
Share of papers Share of citations RCI (rank)GDP spent on R&D
United States34.69% 49.0%1.42 (1) 2.5%
United Kingdom0.0 9.11.14. (6) 2.2
Japan7.3 5.70.78 (18) 2.9
Germany7.0 6.00.86 (16) 2.3
France5.2 4.50.87 (14) 2.4
Canada4.5 4.51.00 (7) 1.6
Italy2.7 2.10.75 (18) 1.2
India2.4 0.70.27 (66) 0.7
Australia2.1 2.10.97 (8) 1.6
Netherlands2.0 2.21.10 (6) 1.9
Sweden1.7 2.11.24 (3) 3.3
Switzerland1.4 1.91.37 (2) 2.7
P.R. China0.9 0.30.27 (65) 0.5
Denmark0.0 1.01.18 (4) 1.8
Finland0.7 0.60.9 (12) 2.4

Science Volume 275, Feb 1997


The above analysis can be broken down by field. Bibliometric analysis can also uncover patterns of relative investment or relative advantage of a country in a particular subject compared with the world average.

Table 2 shows the "relative comparative advantage" (RCA) in a specified field as a fraction of all that country's citations (or papers) that are in that particular field, relative to the fraction of the world's citations that are in that field. Thus, if the advantage is well above 1, a comparative advantage is revealed and vice-versa. Australia, for example has prominence in research based on natural resources. Canada, New Zealand and South Africa are similar. Smaller European countries (Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland) have prominence in biomedical research, The Asian economies have prominence in research related to certain industries (such as computing, engineering, chemistry and materials). Other countries show no particular areas of specialisation.


Table 2

Top five countriesTop five countries
FieldRCA RCIBy total citations By RCI
Agriculture1.05 1.56US,JP,UK,CA,GE SE,UK,DE,CA,NE
Astrophysics1.06 1.13US,UK,GE,FR,CA US,SW,NE,CH,UK
Biol. & biochem . 0.961.05 US,UK,JP,GE,CAUS,SW,SE,UK,GE
Chemistry0.87 1.22US,JP,GD,UK,FR US,SW,IS,NE,SE
Clinical medicine1.22 1.10US,UK,CA,GE,FR US,CA,UK,SE,DE
Computer sci.0.85 0.69US,UK,CA,GE,FR IS,US,SW,CA,DE
Ecol. & environ . 0.791.04 US,CA,UK,AU,GE SF,NO,US,SW,AU
Engineering0.82 0.98US,UK,JP,GE,CA DE,SE,US,SW,AU
Geosciences1.05 1.13US,UK,CA,FR,AU US,AU,UK,SW,FR
Immunology0.96 0.96US,UK,FR,JP,GE SW,US,BE,UK,SE
Molecular sci. 0.00 1.13US,JP,GE,UK,FR US,DE,NE,IS,SW
Mathematics0.87 1.26US,UK,FR,GE,CA DE,NO,UK,US,NE
Microbiology1.09 1.02US,UK,GE,JP,FR US,SW,UK,NO,IS
Molec. biol. & genetics 1.031.05 US,UK,GE,FR,JPSW,US,GE,UK,IS
Multidisciplinary1.07 1.44US,UK,USSR,FR,CE US,SW,DE,SE,CA
Neuroscience1.12 1.13US,UK,CA,GE,FR SE,US,SW,UK,CE
Pharmacology1.27 1.37US,UK,JP,GE,FR SW,NZ,UK,US,SE
Physics0.67 1.00US,GE,JP,FR,UK SW,DE,US,NE,IS
Plant & animal science 1.181.39 US,UK,CA,CE,AU UK,SE,DE,US,AU
Psychology0.99 1.11US,UK,CA,AU,GE US,SE,DE,UK,CA

Science Volume 275, Feb 1997

Table 3 shows publications relative to population size. The top 12 countries are listed first for each index. Rankings for the other countries are in brackets. Australia ranks twelfth in the number of papers per person.

Table 3
CountryPaps. per CountryCite.per
person person
Switzerland107 Switzerland170
Israel152 Sweden125
Sweden147 Israel105
Denmark127 Denmark103
Canada127 U.S100
Netherlands109 Netherlands90
Finland107 Canada95
U.K. 104 U.K.88
U.S.100 Finland86
New Zealand99 Iceland76
Norway96 Norway63
Australia93 Australia61
France (16)72 France(15)51
Germany (17)67 Germany(16)49
Japan (10)19 Japan (19)31
Italy (21)41 Italy (20)28

Science Volume 275, Feb 1997


The Bureau of Industry Economics (BIE) summarises in its report Science system, International Benchmarking Australia's scientific publications and citations over time. It comments that Australian science produces around 2 per cent of science papers in the world. We are ranked tenth in the world in our absolute contribution to scientific papers. This is high for a small country and dwarfs the contribution made by many other countries (like Switzerland and China). Since 1988 Australian scientists have increased their penetration of leading world journals. Australian papers are widely cited as well. Australian scientific papers have the third highest citation rate among APEC countries, behind the US and Canada. Australia has broad scientific capabilities as measured by the shares of papers across 20 scientific fields.

But while the citation rate for Australian papers continues to rise, the rate of increase has been higher for other countries, so that Australia's relative citation impact has declined. This has been particularly evident since the late 1980s and has aroused concern mainly because so many fields in Australia have exhibited this trend. The BIE believes we, as a nation, need to know why citation rates have fallen so rapidly for some fields (such as immunology and chemistry) and to know with greater certainty the source of the general decline. It suggests that the decline in visibility and/or quality of some fields should be monitored.

This view is supported by Butler and Bourke in Performance Indicators Project Monograph Series No.1, 199 A Crisis for Australian Science:

"We believe that there is a crisis of visibility and performance level, though not necessarily of productivity, in Australian Science, that this crisis apparently derives from a complex matrix of causes, especially operating in the higher education system and that these difficulties should be made explicit as an important matter of public policy".

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Return to Top] [Go back to Part 1]